chafiko5@cti.ecp.fr wrote in comp.lang.java.gui:
>> This has nothing to do with designing good user interfaces?
>
> If you think that "good UI" doesn't mean non-buggy and with pretty widgets
> yet simple to use, I do agree with you.
Bugginess is a problem of the implementation phase. In the design
phase all programs are 100% bug free. And since Java does not give
a guarantee against bugs I am having a hard time understanding the
point you are trying to make.
> And if it doesn't mean portable
> either, you're awfully right and I'm awfully wrong.
Good user interface and portability have nothing to do with each
other. There are good user interfaces in some native Windows
programs and they aren't portable at all. Many people praise the
user interfaces on computers made by Apple. Are they portable?
> Unhopefully, you cannot
> completely separate the general aspect of the GUI from the actual tools
> you'll implement it with.
One has to know what kind of features one's tools support. Beyond
that the tools are completely irrelevant.
> And as Nickel was talking in terms of languages,
And as several people have stated, the question was based on lack
of knowledge in GUI design.
> I think that with Java and all related IDEs (JBuilder, NetBeans...) he'll
> build "better UIs"... 'Cause if the code behind the UI is hard to generate
> and maintain, the UI has great chances to be bad.
Are you an experienced C++ GUI developer too? Someone who knew C++
but not Java would say the exact opposite. There are IDEs and GUI
design tools for C++ too.
BTW, have you tried to _maintain_ GUI code generated by NetBeans?
:-)

Signature
Antti S. Brax - asb(at)iki.fi Rullalautailu pitää lapset poissa ladulta
http://www.iki.fi/asb/ http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/abrax/hlb/
"Disconnect this cable to shorten, re-connect to lengthen."
-- Instructions on Logitech's USB mouse extension cord.